Why is Staunton the be all and end all in chess sets?

And why so pricey??

Quality in craftsmanship and design.  If you're just getting a plastic tournament set or a modest wood set, it doesn't matter.  If you're going to spend a wad of dough on a nice set, though, there's no reason not to get Staunton.

The main reason they're the be all and end all for the cheaper sets is advertising and sponsorship.

So you can tell what the pieces are. Who wants to spend time figuring whats what on a Simpsons or Star wars set, before you've even made a move.

If your paying for the Staunton brand, then yes they're pricey. But most sets for next to nothing are the Staunton shape. You don't need some flamboyant rosewood, ivory, whatever pieces to enjoy chess. Cheap plastic ones will do on a cheap roll up vinyl board.

I just got one! and they are nice.  I don't see why another company couldn't do it as good, just not a big enough market I guess. there are other sets that are as good but don't seem to quite capture that classic look. They aren't  super flashy.

I got mine CHEAP on ebay from The House of Staunton for about a third of what they sell for on their online store.

Look them up on wikipedia.  They designed the pieces, and hold patent on them.

fide had to standardise on a set so that whatever tournament you played in you would recognise the pieces.

at the time they chose staunton was far and away the best.

silentfilmstar13 wrote:

Quality in craftsmanship and design.  If you're just getting a plastic tournament set or a modest wood set, it doesn't matter.  If you're going to spend a wad of dough on a nice set, though, there's no reason not to get Staunton.

The main reason they're the be all and end all for the cheaper sets is advertising and sponsorship.

---

I'd have to agree there.  My plastic Staunton "Collector" set is very disappointing.  Each knight has bad die/molding flaws on the top of the mane and the quality is no better (actually worse in some cases) than other plastic sets I've seen.

For plastic sets, I don't think it matters all that much to be perfectly honest.  For wooden chess sets, they're just...beautiful.  I have the Empire set (Blood Rosewood) and the pieces are simply stunning.  You don't have to be a chess player to appreciate their beauty either because I've had many non-players comment on how attractive the set is.  Now, if I could only bring myself to buy the Staunton chess table...

 

I did look it up on Wikipedia and did not find where to go to read about: "they designed the pieces and hold the patent on them".

Perhaps if the "they" would be defined, in other words who is "they"

My reasearch on the web, link below and several other links support this theory, says that the best theory on who designed the pieces and who registered the patent is: Nathaniel Cook and John Jaques both were highly instrumental in achieving the design. It was Nathaniel Cook that registered the design on March1, 1949.

http://www.chessbaron.co.uk/staunton.htm

 

 

This can only really be answered historically. Maybe you know this but in the 19th century people played with all types of set. This caused a lot of confusion and cotroversy amongst players and the British champion Howard Staunton designed a standardised set hence the name Staunton. For all tournament chess this was the design adopted. It makes sense really as this is the standard design in all competitive play throughout the world. No matter where you go you can imediately recognise the pieces and they have the same feel, it also helps in recognising a position in diagrams if they all use the same symbols etc.

A more interesting question might be 'why does white have the first move?'

Which are you referring to Muggles? Staunton pattern pieces or House of Staunton pieces?

lol I don't know Goldendog....i had another forum post about 'fancy chess sets' and people kept mentioning Staunton and how good they were:) just wondered why!

and why does white move first???? lol

when he said "sets" I thought he meant The House of Staunton.

because not all staunton sets are pricey

I asked him what he meant because it's good for him to be clear on what he is asking about. He wasn't quite sure.

Not all staunton sets are pricey, and even not all HOS sets are pricey. Again, it helps to be clear.

History of Staunton Chess Pieces by Sean Evans

http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lab/7378/staunton.htm

The increased interest in the game, particularly in international play during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, brought about a renewed demand for a more universal model for chess pieces. The variety and styles of the conventional form begun in the fifteenth century had expanded tremendously by the beginning of the nineteenth century. Some of the more common conventional types popular during the period included the English Barleycorn, the St. George, the French Regence (named after the Cafe de la Regence in Paris) and the central European Selenus styles. Most pieces were tall, easily tipped and cumbersome during play. But their target sin was the uniformity of the pieces within a set. A player's unfamiliarity with an opponent's set could tragically alter the outcome of a game. By the early decades of the nineteenth century, it was all too clear that there was a great need for a playing set with pieces that were easy to use and universally recognized by players of diverse backgrounds. The solution, first released in 1849 by the purveyors of fine games, John Jaques of London, sport and games manufacturers, of Hatton Garden, London, England, was to become known as the Staunton chess set after the Shakespearean scholar, author and the world champion, Howard Staunton (1810 - 1874).

Although Nathaniel Cook has long been credited with the design, it may have been conceived by his brother-in-law and owner of the firm, John Jaques.

The first theory is Mr. Cook had used prestigious architectural concepts, familiar to an expanding class of educated and prosperous gentry. London architects strongly influenced by Greek and Roman culture were designing prestigious buildings in the neoclassical style. The appearance of the new chessmen was based on this style and the pieces were symbols of "respectable" Victorian society: a distinguished bishops miter, a queen's coronet and king's crown, a knight carved as a stallion's head from the ancient Greek Elgin Marbles and a castle streamlined into clean classical lines, projecting an aura of strength and security. The form of the pawns was based on the 'Freemasons square and compasses', however; another theory reflects the pawns form is derived from the balconies of London Victorian buildings. There were also practical innovations: for the first time a crown emblem was stamped onto a rook and knight of each side, to identify their positioning on to the king's side of the board.

The second theory is Jaques, a master turner, had probably been experimenting with a design that would not only be accepted by players but could also be produced at a reasonable cost. In the end, he most likely borrowed and synthesized elements from sets already available to create a design of sheer brilliance. The key was the use of universally recognizable symbols atop conventional stems and bases. Moreover, the pieces were compact, well balanced and weighted to provide a playing set that was as useful as it was understandable.

Our belief is that it was a combination of both theories with the synergy of Mr. Cook the entrepreneur and Mr. Jaques the artisan.

Further to the design, the ebony and boxwood sets were weighted with lead to provide added stability and the underside of each piece was covered with felt. This afforded the players the illusion that the chessmen were floating across the board. Some ivory sets were made from African ivory. The king sizes ranged from 3.5 inches to 4.5 inches and the sets typically came in a caron-pierre case, each one bearing a facsimile of Staunton's signature under the lid.

Jaques then approached his brother-in-law for advice. At the Patent Office, on March 1, 1849, Nathaniel Cook, 198, Strand, London, England, registered an Ornamental Design for a set of Chess-Men, under the Ornamental Designs Act of 1842. At that date, there was no provision for the registration of any design or articles of ivory, registration was limited to Class 2, articles made chiefly of wood.

Mr. Cook was the editor for the Illustrated London News where Howard Staunton published chess articles and convinced the champion to endorse the chess set. The advertisement possibly written by Mr. Staunton published as follows:

"A set of Chessmen, of a pattern combining elegance and solidity to a degree hitherto unknown, has recently appeared under the auspices of the celebrated player Mr. STAUNTON. A guiding principle has been to give by their form a signification to the various pieces - thus the king is represented by a crown, the Queen by a coronet, &c. The pieces generally are fashioned with convenience to the hand; and it is to be remarked, that while there is so great an accession to elegance of form, it is not attained at the expense of practical utility. Mr. STAUNTON'S pattern adopts but elevates the conventional form; and the base of the Pieces being of a large diameter, they are more steady than ordinary sets." Illustrated London News, September 8, 1849.

Staunton not only endorsed the product for Jaques of London but promoted it to an extraordinary degree including the lambasting and derision of any other design of chessmen then proposed. This may have been the first time that a celebrated name was used to promote a commercial product. The Staunton as it became known, became available to the general public on September 29, 1849. The Staunton style, was soon the standard on which most tournament playing pieces have been made and used around the globe ever since. The low cost to produce the Staunton set allowed the masses to purchase sets and helped to popularize the game of chess.

The Staunton set obtained the stamp of approval of the World Chess Federation, when in 1924 it was selected as their choice of set, for use in all future international chess tournaments.

For over a century and a half, this style has been cherished by players around the world. The superiority of the design lay in its well-balanced, easily recognized pieces. Such was its success that it will be the style of choice for play to this day and for many years into the future.

---- Sources:

House of Staunton

Jaques of London

Bill Wall

Book: Master Pieces, by Gareth Williams

Book: The Art of Chess, by Colleen Schafroth

 

The Origins of Chess

http://www.goddesschess.com/chessays/stauntonpawn.html

Men of Staunton - or are they?
by Barry Martin
(Chess Magazine October 1994)

Howard Staunton's mighty contributions to chess should not camouflage the fact that a remarkable climate had already been created for the game prior to the great man's rise to glory," (1)

In the 18th and early 19th centuries, players - and also writers - such as Stamma, Sarratt, Lewis, Walker and Philidor, (2) amongst others, had already excited a popular enthusiasm for chess that had gone far beyond mere idle curiosity. Indeed, Philidor's classic book L'analyse du jeu des Echecs, 1749, was published in London, while Philidor himself feted at Parsloe's club in St.James (founded 1774), where he was the incumbent master of chess from February to May each year, and it was to him you went to learn about the game. Philidor was also the first player referred to as a Grandmaster by George Walker and others. In Bell's Life, a popular Sunday paper in which Walker had a chess column, the term 'Grandmaster' is met for the first time on February 18 1838 when it refers to William Lewis as 'our past grandmaster'. (3) The term is used more commonly towards the end of the 19th century in respect of chess players, but its origins are from an entirely different source - that of Freemasonry.

"Liverpool Chess Club - Mr.G.S.Speckley hon.sec. departure to China presented with set large ivory chessmen (of the pattern designed by Mr.Staunton)..."

 

you are conflating two issues:

staunton is a STYLE of pieces. House of Staunton (and other names) are BRANDS of pieces. you can get a staunton STYLE of pieces for $3. or you can get a House of Staunton BRAND of pieces (www.houseofstaunton.com) or other BRANDED set for more.

generally when most people refer to staunton they are referring to the STYLE. and yes, they are the best because they are the most clear :) i've been working on a modernized staunton style, but haven't found an industrial designer to complete my vision :D

I'm an 18th C reenactor in my spare time (yeah, I dress funny an wear a three-sided hat), but I can't enjoy a game of chess at an historical event because I have a hard time playing with accurate pieces for the 1760s-1790s.  My feeble skills at the board were learned with Staunton pieces and symbols, and skill take the hindmost, Benjamin Franklin would have worn me out just for the confusion his set would have caused me.

 

  Ever tried to play a game on Chessmaster in the kid's room with their cookie dough sets?  The basic Staunton lines of recognizeable pieces are just fine with this duffer!

i love this site. thanks for the great info

I have worked in chess set production and sourcing in the past. The Staunton design has been made into 100s of variants, all highly recognisable as Staunton to a greater or lesser degree. Many people are still under the illusion that there is a company called "Staunton" who make chess sets.

Most of the well known chess brands source their sets from abroad from a variety of manufacturers and skilled crafts people. They then package them, brand them and import them as their own products.